Patient- vs Clinician-Reported Outcomes

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by nicnacuk, Dec 15, 2007.

  1. nicnacuk Registered Member

    Messages:
    71
    Hi all,

    There is debate among medical sciences whether data on patient well-being should be collected via patient-report methods or clinician-report methods. The former obviously offers subjective experience whilst the other is objective and based on observation. I think the majority of people would agree that patient-reported data is more useful, but is it really always reliable? What are the benefits of objective data over subjective? Which do you think is more likely to provide more 'accurate' data to work with?

    All the Best,

    Nicola
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    citations
    the rule is to utilize all available diagnostic tools
    even unwarranted ones
    ja
    malpractice and whatnot
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    There would obviously be bias present in either method. It would be better overall to use both before reaching a conclusion.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. maxg Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
    I'd say both are important but the relative importance depends on the outcome you're trying to evaluate. For instance, I read an article recently on patient & clinician ratings of the reasons why people in drug abuse treatment relapse. The reason most often mentioned by the patients was "craving" but that was metioned by none of the clinicians who interviewed those same patient--they tended to look for external reasons (e.g., arguments with others). Both answers are probably right but neither presents a full picture of what's going on.
     
  8. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    justify
    you think rational and impartial thought to be an impossibility?
     
  9. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    I think both are important.

    The fact is that few doctors are as alert, perceptive, resourceful, insightful, aggressive and careful like Dr House.

    Even though there is the danger of (unintentionally) misleading the doctor, unless the patient is very alert and brings up everything that could be related to their condition, there is a good chance of misdiagnosis and mistreatment.

    This conversation -
    Doctor: "Why didn't you tell me that sooner?!"
    Patient: "You didn't ask."
    - is all too common, in my experience.


    Also, the nature of the disease or injury can play an important part as well. For some diseases and injuries, patient report is the main source of information.
     
  10. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    ja
    routine diagnoses vs further tests
     
  11. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264

    They both give equall amounts of data to use in order to make an

    evaluation about the overall health of a patient. Use them both I'd say. Why

    can't both be used? Whenever I go to see any of my doctors they take

    notes as I'm talking about myself and my maladies.
     
  12. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    its freaky that we are having this conversation
    truly dumbfucksci

    /weep
     

Share This Page